This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.
Claimant is employed as a Crew Clerk with seniority date of August 16, 1969. On May 11, 1994, Claimant held a Crew Clerk position identified as CB77 on the third shift, 11:00 P.M. to 7:00 ,x.:11.. Saturday through Wednesday with rest days Thursday and Friday.
On or about the same date. Slav It, 1994, Carrier consolidated two first shift Crew Clerk positions presen ing the higher rate of pay paid to the first shift Crew Clerk for marking the "Mechanical Board" which generates the basic payroll records of Mechanical Department employees. In addition. Carrier extended the higher rate from five to seven days per week on the remaining first shift position.
The record before the Board reveals that the higher rate of pay paid the first shift Crew Clerk position came about on June 1, 1986 due to the incorporation of the Mechanical Department's personnel board into the first shift crew board office. The Mechanical Board is still marked on the first shift.
The Organization argues that work of the abolished first shift position was transferred to the third shift Crew Clerk position CB-77 and. therefore. Claimant is entitled to the higher rate of pay paid on the first shift, citing Rule 50 as supporting its position.
"RULE 50
NEW POSITIONS
Carrier states that none of the work, "Mechanical Department Boardmarking" for which the higher rate is paid, was transferred from the fast shift Crew Clerks to any other shift. Further, that any additional work being performed on third shift Position CB-77 is incidental to the duties of Crew Clerk and of a de mimmus nature.
The Carrier argues that this Board is without jurisdiction to adjudicate this dispute because it does not fall under Section 3 of the Railway Labor Act, as amended, because the remedy sought is a "higher rate of pay, or new rate" of pay for Claimant which falls under Section 6 of the Act.
This Board disagrees. The claim seeks to a:tend an existing rate of pay to a position the Organization asserts is performing the same work as performed on a first shift position receiving the higher rate. The dispute is clearly a Section 3 dispute as the Organization seeks as a remedy a rate of pay for new position CB-77 in conformity with the rate of pay of an analogous position, CB-70, in the seniority district where created. Clearly the remedy sought comes under Rule 50. The procedural issue raised by the Carrier is without merit.
On the merits, this Board is convinced from the record before it that the claim must be denied. We say this for the reason that the record contains no evidence to support the assertion that "Marking the Mechanical Board" for which the higher rate was established, was transferred to the new position. CB-77, held by Claimant. Further, it is an undisputed fact that the higher rate paid on position CB-70 was created to cover the additional responsibility of "Marking the Mechanical Department's personnel board."
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an award favorable to the Claimant(s) not be made.